BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 241 of 2016                                                                         

                                                           Date of Institution         :    16.9.2016

                                                          Date of Decision   :    27.9.2017.

Suresh Goyal son of Shri Prem Nath Goyal, resident of Gali Dr. G.K. Aggarwal Wali, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. Anucool, Air Conditioner, Shop No.14-15, Gandhi Market, Sirsa, District Sirsa Haryana through its Proprietor/ partner (Authorized Distributor of VOLTAS product).

2. Voltas Limited, Registered Office: Unitary Products Business Group, Voltas House, “A” Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Chinchpokli, Mumbai- 400033 through its Managing Director.

3. Voltas Authorized Service Partner, Super Service, Friends Colony, Hisar Road, Sirsa, through its Manager/ Incharge.

                                                                    ...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT

      SMT. RAJNI GOYAT ………………… MEMBER

                SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.   

Present:       Sh. Sanjay Goyal,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Sandeep Gaba, Advocate for opposite parties.

ORDER

                   The case of the complainant in brief is that on 16.6.2016, he had purchased new air conditioner of Voltas company Model 183-DY for a sum of Rs.23,300/- from opposite party no.1 vide cash memo/ bill No.143 dated 16.6.2016 and op no.1 gave guarantee for a period of five years in all respects. That just after purchase of air conditioner, the same is not working properly and it stopped cooling and even its motor gives very high loud. The complainant immediately visited op no.1 and narrated the said defects. The op no.1 sent mechanic to the house of complainant for its repair, who checked the AC and prepared service report and took the same to service centre on 18.8.2016. After its repair it was installed in the premises of complainant but after three days it became again defective. On complaint, mechanic visited the house of complainant and prepared service report and took the AC to service centre on 26.8.2016. Again it was fitted in his house but it did not work. The complainant again made complaint to op no.1 who stated that there is a manufacturing defect in the AC and it can be replaced by company but till date the said AC is not replaced despite his repeated requests to the ops. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed joint written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that so far as cooling by the AC is concerned, it is a 1.5 ton air conditioner and it can give cooling in a room having size 10’x10’x10’ whereas the AC in question has been installed by complainant in the room of higher size i.e. 15’X12’X11 and the AC in question being of 1.5 ton capacity is not sufficient to give cooling in the room of a higher size that the prescribed size. Although, on complaints from the complainant with regard to cooling, the above fact has been explained to the complainant by the representative/ engineer of the ops but still the complainant is not satisfied and has been insisting upon the ops to replace the same or to refund the cost of the same. Moreover, so far as complete guarantee of the AC in question is concerned, the same was only for a period of one year and not for five years as wrongly claimed by complainant. However, at the same time, it is submitted that the normal wear and tear of the AC during its operation by the complainant is not at all covered under warranty and the complainant has to bear the expenses of the same. It is also submitted that as and when the complainant approached the answering op no.2 in connection with complaint in AC, his complaints were properly attended and he was provided prompt and effective service. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.

3.                The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copies of service reports Ex.C2 and copy of bill Ex.C3. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit Ex.RW1.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

5.                It is an admitted fact between the parties that complainant had purchased an air conditioner on 16.6.2016 from the opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.23,300/-. It is also proved fact on record that AC of the complainant is within period of warranty. The complainant has proved on record that his AC was not working properly and it stopped cooling and it does not give proper cooling as a result of which he approached ops twice for its repair/ service. Though, the ops have taken a specific plea that the AC purchased by the complainant is of the capacity of 1.5 ton which is meant for a room of 10’X 10’ X 10’ but however, the complainant has got installed his AC in a room of 15’ X 12’ X 11’, as such the AC of 1.5 cannot give proper cooling in such a big room otherwise AC is defect free. The perusal of the evidence of the ops reveal that ops have not placed on record any evidence in support of their plea showing that room in which AC has been installed is of 15’X12’ and further ops have not led any evidence of an expert with the opinion that AC of 1.5 ton is not sufficient to give proper cooling in the room where AC is installed by the complainant. So it appears that AC of the complainant suffers from some defect which clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the ops.

6.                In view of above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out necessary repairs in the AC even by replacement of any part of the AC or by filling gas in the AC in order to provide proper cooling in the room without any cost to the satisfaction of complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case the AC is not repairable due to any manufacturing defect, the ops shall be liable to replace the same with new one of same make and model or to refund the cost of the AC in question within further 30 days. The ops are further directed to pay Rs.2000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. This order should be complied with by all the ops jointly and severally. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.   

Announced in open Forum.     Member      Member                              President,

Dated:27.09.2017.                                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                      Redressal Forum, Sirsa.